Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, is the foundation stone of the American doctrine of judicial review. Remarkably, the case was decided without the parties having presented an oral argument to the Supreme Court. This book begins with a unique transcript of an oral argument in the case, conducted before a bench of four distinguished federal judges. The transcript is followed by essays on Marburys intellectual background, its significance in U.S. constitutional history, and the way in which we might think of constitutional theory and judicial review in terms sensitive to the...
Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, is the foundation stone of the American doctrine of judicial review. Remarkably, the case was decided with...
Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, is the foundation stone of the American doctrine of judicial review. Remarkably, the case was decided without the parties having presented an oral argument to the Supreme Court. This book begins with a unique transcript of an oral argument in the case, conducted before a bench of four distinguished federal judges. The transcript is followed by essays on Marburys intellectual background, its significance in U.S. constitutional history, and the way in which we might think of constitutional theory and judicial review in terms sensitive to the...
Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, is the foundation stone of the American doctrine of judicial review. Remarkably, the case was decided with...
The NAACP's fight against segregated education--the first public interest litigation campaign--culminated in the 1954 Brown decision. While touching on the general social, political, and economic climate in which the NAACP acted, Mark V. Tushnet emphasizes the internal workings of the organization as revealed in its own documents. He argues that the dedication and the political and legal skills of staff members such as Walter White, Charles Hamilton Houston, and Thurgood Marshall were responsible for the ultimate success of public interest law. This edition contains a new epilogue by...
The NAACP's fight against segregated education--the first public interest litigation campaign--culminated in the 1954 Brown decision. While tou...
The tenure of Earl Warren as chief justice of the United States Supreme Court (1953-69) was marked by a series of decisions unique in the history of the Court for the progressive agenda they bespoke. What made the Warren Court special? How can students of history and political science understand the Warren Court as part of constitutional history and politics? To answer such questions, nine well-known legal scholars and historians explore how each justice contributed to the distinctiveness of the Warren Court in Supreme Court history.
The tenure of Earl Warren as chief justice of the United States Supreme Court (1953-69) was marked by a series of decisions unique in the history o...
The tenure of Earl Warren as chief justice of the United States Supreme Court (1953-69) was marked by a series of decisions unique in the history of the Court for the progressive agenda they bespoke. What made the Warren Court special? How can students of history and political science understand the Warren Court as part of constitutional history and politics? To answer such questions, nine well-known legal scholars and historians explore how each justice contributed to the distinctiveness of the Warren Court in Supreme Court history.
The tenure of Earl Warren as chief justice of the United States Supreme Court (1953-69) was marked by a series of decisions unique in the history o...
"All readers interested in today's constitutional courts will profit from eavesdropping on this conversation." "Judicature"
This collection of essays on constitutional law is designed to introduce the reader to the range of issues concerning constitutional theory that occupy the attention of constitutional scholars in the United States today."
"All readers interested in today's constitutional courts will profit from eavesdropping on this conversation." "Judicature"
Most recent discussion of the United States Constitution and war--both the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq--has been dominated by two diametrically opposed views: the alarmism of those who see many current policies as portending gross restrictions on American civil liberties, and the complacency of those who see these same policies as entirely reasonable accommodations to the new realities of national security. Whatever their contributions to the public discussion and policy-making processes, these voices contribute little to an understanding of the real constitutional issues raised by...
Most recent discussion of the United States Constitution and war--both the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq--has been dominated by two diametrical...
For the first time, a collection of dissents from the most famous Supreme Court cases If American history can truly be traced through the majority decisions in landmark Supreme Court cases, then what about the dissenting opinions? In issues of race, gender, privacy, workers' rights, and more, would advances have been impeded or failures rectified if the dissenting opinions were in fact the majority opinions? In offering thirteen famous dissents-from "Marbury v. Madison" and "Brown v. Board of Education" to "Griswold v. Connecticut" and "Lawrence v. Texas," each edited with the judges'...
For the first time, a collection of dissents from the most famous Supreme Court cases If American history can truly be traced through the majority...
Comprised of essays from twelve leading scholars, this volume extends the discussion of Civil War controversies far past the death of the Confederacy in the spring of 1865. Contributors address, among other topics, Walt Whitman's poetry, the handling of the Union and Confederate dead, the treatment of disabled and destitute northern veterans, Ulysses S. Grant's imposing tomb, and Hollywood's long relationship with the Lost Cause narrative. The contributors are William Blair, Stephen Cushman, Drew Gilpin Faust, Gary W. Gallagher, J. Matthew Gallman, Joseph T. Glatthaar, Harold Holzer, James...
Comprised of essays from twelve leading scholars, this volume extends the discussion of Civil War controversies far past the death of the Confederacy ...
A look at First Amendment coverage of music, non-representational art, and nonsense The Supreme Court has unanimously held that Jackson Pollock's paintings, Arnold Schoenberg's music, and Lewis Carroll's poem -Jabberwocky- are -unquestionably shielded- by the First Amendment. Nonrepresentational art, instrumental music, and nonsense: all receive constitutional coverage under an amendment protecting -the freedom of speech, - even though none involves what we typically think of as speech--the use of words to convey meaning.
As a legal matter, the Court's...
A look at First Amendment coverage of music, non-representational art, and nonsense The Supreme Court has unanimously held that Jacks...
